Navigation

The Rational Response Squad is a group of atheist activists who impact society by changing the way we view god belief. This site is a haven for those who are pushing back against the norm, and a place for believers of gods to have their beliefs exposed as false should they want to try their hand at confronting us.

Buy any item on AMAZON, and we'll use the small commission to help end theism, dogma, violence, hatred, and other irrationality. Buy an Xbox 360 -- PS3 -- Laptop -- Apple

Comprehending God Poe, the Bible and Candid style.

Posted on: May 14, 2012 - 2:37pm

Greatest I am

Posts: 278

Joined: 2012-03-30

Offline

Comprehending God Poe, the Bible and Candid style.

Comprehending God Poe, the Bible and Candid style.

Poe said...
If we cannot comprehend God in his visible works, how then in his inconceivable thoughts, that call the works into being? If we cannot understand him in his objective creatures, how then in his substantive moods and phases of creation?

This is basically what scriptures say when they say to seek God in the heavens. Nature IOW.

These views are what led to my apotheosis and I endorse them wholeheartedly.

When I was a seeker, before I found this clip below. I had concluded that reality was in the best and only state that it could be in. This best state included nature as well as man within it.

When this was written, most thought it to just be a cynical view of life but I think it is quite true and irrefutable, based on the anthropic principle and the notion that a God would start things of in a good way as scriptures indicate for Eden and that that best way would be self-perpetuating because I could not imagine a God using creation as a make work project that he would have to tweak every now and then as scriptures indicated that he did.

Candide

"It is demonstrable that things cannot be otherwise than as they are; for as all things have been created for some end, they must necessarily be created for the best end.”

The above quote should make sense to both believers and non-believers alike, if you see nature always doing the best it can with all the conditions at hand taken into account.

I would like to stay away from discussions of God’s existence here because I think any such discussion would be speculative nonsense as none of our opinions of God is true knowledge and none of it can be proven until he actually shows up. Even as I do not believe in a creator God, I will not argue with those who give credit to him instead of nature and evolution. It is what is here that I would ask you to focus on.

Just looking at nature and mankind then at this point in time, can we agree that what we have is the best of all possible worlds, given all the conditions at hand?

To set you on the tract and mindset that I developed, I would like you to think of the day you were born.
Can you say that given all the conditions at hand back then, your DNA and all other conditions, nature produced you to the very best condition that she could muster?

If yes, consider that the next day let’s say, after you began to learned and found the teat and continued learning and developing, right till today, that the initial best you, in the best of all possible world, are continuously aging as the best that you can possible be, given all the conditions at hand.
Not perfect, but the best you can possibly be.

Are you living in the best of all possible world and are you today, the best that nature can produce, given all the conditions at hand?

In Nature, we have water as solid ice, liquid water, amd water vapour. Is one of those forms the 'best' form?

Is homo sapien the best form that natural selection could manage for us? As we pick apart all the "design" faults, we arrive at the position that, of course, the best design for us would have been to be made as ... god... that is to say, faultless by definition.

The 'best' Universe has no faults. Does this Universe have faults?

The best human has no faults. Do we have faults? Stardust in one form dying and becoming stardust in another form; is that really a design fault?

In Nature, we have water as solid ice, liquid water, amd water vapour. Is one of those forms the 'best' form?

Is homo sapien the best form that natural selection could manage for us? As we pick apart all the "design" faults, we arrive at the position that, of course, the best design for us would have been to be made as ... god... that is to say, faultless by definition.

The 'best' Universe has no faults. Does this Universe have faults?

The best human has no faults. Do we have faults? Stardust in one form dying and becoming stardust in another form; is that really a design fault?

(Love your topics by the way DL!!)

Thanks.

You have added many questions without answering mine.

Reciprocity is fair play. Give an answer to mine and we can look at yours unless you were just throwing them out for us to ignore because you did not have an answer to the O P.

In Nature, we have water as solid ice, liquid water, amd water vapour. Is one of those forms the 'best' form?

Is homo sapien the best form that natural selection could manage for us? As we pick apart all the "design" faults, we arrive at the position that, of course, the best design for us would have been to be made as ... god... that is to say, faultless by definition.

The 'best' Universe has no faults. Does this Universe have faults?

The best human has no faults. Do we have faults? Stardust in one form dying and becoming stardust in another form; is that really a design fault?

(Love your topics by the way DL!!)

Thanks.

You have added many questions without answering mine.

Reciprocity is fair play. Give an answer to mine and we can look at yours unless you were just throwing them out for us to ignore because you did not have an answer to the O P.

Regards

DL

Your question is near impossible to answer as you give the question, and tag a proviso at the end that reverses the 'best'.

Are you living in the best possible world.... given the conditions? Well, the best possible world would not have these conditions.

You may as well ask, "are you eating the best possible pizza you could ever eat...given that you are eating a hamburger?"

So the answer to your question is "no" but that is because you have embedded the 'no' in the question itself.

I did not embed a no answer anywhere but your answer tells me that you did not understand the O P in the first place.

Regards

DL

That's pretty likely.

But as I am the only one that replied, it may be that what you are trying to say is not getting 'communicated'?

believe it or not, it is getting communicated, and it's just as asinine as it seems.

i'm starting to see a distinct pattern here: this guy peppers the forum with his threads, contributes nothing to anyone else's, gets butthurt when others (frequently) don't mistake his incoherence for profundity. he's an annoying but unfortunately not uncommon breed of poster: a narcissist with delusions of brilliance.

basically, he's a slightly more eloquent version of the stoned guy at a party who goes, "what if god is actually a woman? waaah! think about that!"

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson

I did not embed a no answer anywhere but your answer tells me that you did not understand the O P in the first place.

Regards

DL

That's pretty likely.

But as I am the only one that replied, it may be that what you are trying to say is not getting 'communicated'?

believe it or not, it is getting communicated, and it's just as asinine as it seems.

i'm starting to see a distinct pattern here: this guy peppers the forum with his threads, contributes nothing to anyone else's, gets butthurt when others (frequently) don't mistake his incoherence for profundity. he's an annoying but unfortunately not uncommon breed of poster: a narcissist with delusions of brilliance.

basically, he's a slightly more eloquent version of the stoned guy at a party who goes, "what if god is actually a woman? waaah! think about that!"